rerun

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'Re-run', implying a read-only or non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies data, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Re-run') and efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and potential complexity in re-running prompts across architectures, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with one parameter ('architecture') having an enum and description, while 'prompt_id' lacks a description. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying 'prompt_id' refers to history and 'architecture' is for re-running. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but doesn't fully explain parameter usage or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Re-run') and resource ('a previous prompt'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the action involves using a different architecture, which distinguishes it from simple re-execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute' or 'generate', which might have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute' or 'generate'. It mentions 'previous prompt' and 'different architecture', implying context for re-running historical prompts with architectural changes, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.